Different God forgiving sins

Sure byt i really dont know why im at false here

We see things differently.
I see Heaven as a state of eternal bliss. This to me is essentially being in union with God, being one with God. It is not a given. It can only be granted by God. We go to God by God’s Grace and not by our own doing.

Righeousness is a path. It is about a person essentially being connected to other likeminded people. This connection is spiritual. It is love. We, who have love, are spiritually connected so that we value Justice, which is of God because love is of God. So if we have love, we will naturally be just and hence righteous.

However, being righteous and having love doesn’t mean we can’t falter. Hence the need for forgiveness. And for forgiveness the sinner must do the following:

  1. acknowledge the wrong doing,
  2. have remorse, which comes with a change of heart.
  3. wanting to make amends without being forced to.
    These actions, if sincere, repair the damage done by the wrongful or sinful action.

So it is not a given that if you are righteous, you automatically go to Heaven. You have to be cleansed of sin too. We all falter one way or another. We need to get back on track so to speak. To make things right again.

Ok i agree.I was just stating that “miss the mark” is also the evil actions that prevent you from that goal.Cheers!!

This gets back to why I made the comment.
Evil is not included in “missing the mark” or sin. Evil is a transgression. The evil is deliberate action in the full knowledge that it goes against Justice, goes against Righteousness and goes against God. It is done anyway, without regard. That is the point I was trying to make.

Evil is not simply “bad”.

What you describe is very evil, to be sure - as long as you don’t think that this is the only form of evil. One would hope that a healthy vast majority of people in the world are not psychopaths. The only reason I bring it up is it sounds like you could be inviting the implication that only psychopathy is truly evil. I’m pointing out (like Solzhenitsyn) that the line between good and evil cuts through every human heart (even the kind, non-psychopathic ones - though I only offer that on the faith that even in the most vicious psychopath, there is some little buried corner of his heart somewhere, even if long buried and overwhelmed, that has a faint pulse of real life or conscience in it).

2 Likes

Though off topic, I also think that the goal is not heaven. I think the goal is to love God. Because we love God we want to please God. That’s why we must choose do we love our flesh more than we love our God. All sin is gratification of the flesh. It’s our will above Yahweh’s will.

A byproduct of a abiding in God is eternal life. Not heaven, but the restoration and overlap of heaven and earth. We don’t go to heaven. Heaven comes to us. It’s Gods heavenly presence being fully available without destroying us because we see grafted into Christ, the tree of life.

Which is something no other god or faith can provide .

The idea that humane people can be evil or do evil acts is not only put forward by Solzhenitsyn. There are others too, with this opinion. For example Hannah Arendt said she believed that the war criminal Adolph Eichmann, a Nazi operative, who organized the transportation of millions of Jews to the concentration camps for the Nazi’s Final Solution, was .an ordinary bureaucrat, just following orders. In her words, he was ‘neither perverted nor sadistic’, but ‘terrifyingly normal’.

I don’t know how much Solzhenitsyn and Arendt understand but there are two types of humans. One has a conscience and the other does not. Now you may want to put a fancy label on them like psychopath or narcissist or malignant narcissist or sociopath, but the fact of the matter is that anyone without a conscience is inhumane regardless of any other labels.

Just to give you some information, because you seem to think that an inhumane person such as a psychopath, can have some small amount of conscience. My late husband was a psychopath. He told me much about the inhumane and how they operate. Among the things he told me he said that an inhumane person has deadened their conscience. He said they do that by firstly doing extremely harmful things to either animals or humans or both until they feel nothing in doing these acts. That is the first stage, the stage of indifference.

The second stage he said was when you can do the harm and get pleasure out of doing it. Then the conscience is entirely dead. And I might add that he said “my people”, meaning inhumane people, “are superior to your kind, because we can do what ever we like and we are not bothered by any stupid conscience.”

The vast majority of people, the humane, around 80% of the world’s population can do bad things and we can even say extremely bad things, but not evil. For instance we may see two people have each done a murder and a lot of people want to jump to the conclusion that they are both evil, but motive is the defining factor as to whether their acts were evil or not.

A humane person may become enraged and do a murder. This is essentially consistent with the Biblical view of sin as I understand it, from my reading it in the Greek. Amartia/ sin is essentially missing the mark. The mark being justice.

An inhumane person may simply want to get some kicks raping a child to death to hear their screaming and see their suffering as happened somewhere recently, I think it was Indonesia but I may be wrong. This motive makes the action evil. This action for this motive cannot be done with a conscience and empathy.

Now we have the problem of forgiveness.
A person can’t be forgiven for an evil action, more because they have no remorse. They don’t consider the crime as anything. “I did what I wanted to do” is the argument. My husband admitted he was involved in crimes and sometimes showed utter indifference land at other times pleasure.

So only sins, which can be very, very bad, can be forgiven. And the reason is because the humane person has a conscience. When they reflect on their actions they see that they were wrong and bad and they have remorse. They admit the wrong doing and want to make amends.

If we put everyone in the same basket and say everyone can do good and evil, then we muddy the waters and give a free ticket to those that are evil to do evil.

I don’t doubt that people can become very given-over-to-evil people as their “vision” of humanity becomes increasingly inward-turned on only themselves. I’m not arguing with your own life experiences. It sounds like you’ve known some very lost souls. They may succeed in “outdoing” most others in their rush to inhumanity; I only maintain that it is spiritually unsound (and unbiblical) to maintain any point-of-view that sees evil as only (or even mainly) belonging to some other group “over there”, while ostensibly elevating yourself and everybody else by comparison.

Again, this isn’t to say that some people aren’t worse than others. We can be - “racing for the depths”, as it were. But then when we inevitably start to think, “well, at least I’m not 
” is when we too start to lose our own spiritual footing.

2 Likes

A person who thinks along these lines is usually not too interested in spirituality and too wrapped up in this passing parade. However they are still not evil. They may end up doing some very bad things by justifying themselves, but it takes a lot more to become evil.

When you define evil in such extreme terms as you insist, then yes - one hopes that most of us are nowhere close to that. In closer to real-life terms, though, evil isn’t something one has to work toward. They (we) slide into it.

If I understand you right, you are distinguishing “evil” from “mere sin”. And perhaps those gradations make some sense - especially when dealing with the extremes of evil such as you bring up. I was just thinking of sin and evil as all part of the same big package.

1 Like

I used to think the same as you years ago. But I have come to realize there is no one big package. When my late husband was talking about the inhumane subculture this matter came up. I told him about a teacher we, that is the whole class, grilled at school. I would have been about nine or ten years old, so junior school.

There were certainly the “ring leaders”, kids that initiated the actions and threatened anyone who wouldn’t be a part of their nasty games. While this particular teacher was writing on the board, the ring leaders sent messages to everyone in the classroom in the form of paper aeroplanes. One of the messages was “When Davie combs his hair, we are all to stand up suddenly making as much noise as possible”. Davie of course was one of the ring leaders sitting at the front of the class were all could see him. He waited till the teacher was in a bit of a daze, caught up in what he was writing on the board and then gave the signal.

We make a lot of noise standing up suddenly, even some desks and chairs fell over. The teacher would spin around like a top shouting “what’s going on?” At that we all laughed and sat back down again only to get the usual lecture about how important it was to pay attention. We justified this nasty act to ourselves saying that if the lesson got too boring why not rev him up a bit? He wasn’t liked because he wouldn’t come down to the student level and he was really up himself.

My husband grinned when I gave this example as “evil action” and said “you were asked to do something nasty, but it was still within you bounds”. I asked what he meant. He said “well if you were asked to put a little piece of rat feces in his coffee would you do it?” I shuddered at the idea and I am certain that the vast majority of the students would not have done that sort of thing. My husband explained that the ring leaders were only able to force other students to comply, if the nasty act was not really something evil.

I realized that even at that young age, the vast majority of students would not be forced to do evil. This also applies to adults. My husband had said “you can get a good person to do something bad by some enticement, such as some money”. But he told me “there was a limit to what you could get a good, meaning humane, person to do”. He said “you can lead them down a path just so far getting them to do more and more dubious things, but” he said, “you can’t get them to do something evil”.

There is, as I have found, two very different categories, one is sin, which can be very bad, and the other is evil, which takes pure hatred and no conscience. “Mere sin” can include some very, very bad actions, including murder, but you will find that they are still not evil. The reason is that the humane person’s conscience will stand in the way of him or her doing something that is evil. The inhumane person has no conscience, so they have no barrier to doing acts of extreme violence, whether that violence is done underhandedly or obviously. And they have no remorse for their actions. A humane person, who has done a bad action, sin, will at some point become bothered by it, they will suffer with a bad conscience and can suffer for years. This is never the case with an inhumane person. We can’t put them both in the same group.

I can’t agree. In stress, and in self imaging of victimization, we justify a lot of cruelty. It is said that the inhumane punishment of Germany at the end of WW1 precipitated WW2. And many who suffered at the hands of others, such as Puritans in the American colonies and Huguenots in South Africa, acted cruelly to indigenous folks. I can be as bad as Hitler if I justify it.

This is an interesting, and frightening, study an following authority

3 Likes

Another area I struggle with is that there is a good deal more suffering in the world than there is evil intent. Most of us have no idea of the hurt we do cause.

In addition, addictions (sex, alcohol, drugs, etc) we follow to heal our own pain
but they magnify it. And they make us insensitive of others’ pain.

It seems to me that that is also where God comes in. His point of reference mediates and heals
Emmanuel, God with us, gave us an example in compassion. It will take a lifetime for me to understand

1 Like

A person can be stressed and violated and enraged and yes, I agree that that person can lash out and do serious harm, even to be seen as cruelty. However this is really missing the mark. They are stressed. This is not done with a cool head. This is why we must look at motive. Cruelty is not done in a rage. It is done without any conscience.

I am not convinced that any war is started by the general public, even if they perceive an injustice that affects them. Public opinion can however be swayed for sure, but the wars are not started by ordinary people. They are started by what we might call the Deep State, an international consortium of very evil people, for gain of some sort, possibly mostly for financial gain. The Bush family at the time supported Hitler and even after America entered the war. How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power | World news | The Guardian

And this also involves the cold war. A little bit of history that is not taught in schools. Churchill went to Stalin at the end of WW2 and after he shot his mouth off at the UN about freedoms and nations having the right to self determination blah blah. He and Stalin entered into an agreement, you have this and we’ll have that. They carved up; Eastern Europe and shook hands on the deal. Churchill then invaded Greece, which had been an ally. He did enormous damage in Greece, created a civil war, killed nearly 10% of the population not only in the war but more so by stopping ships from Egypt with food and created a famine in Greece. He had also sacked the legitimate Greek Government, claiming it was communist, when it was socialist much like Sweden had, and the puppet government he set up forgave the German debt to Greece. All this was done to create the illusion of a war where Russia might come into play, when it was all settled and Starlin kept his word not to intervene, no matter what.

So Greece was ransacked, literally. I found out a lot of this when I went to Greece and talked with Greek relatives. My uncle for instance had fought against the Germans from sixteen years old. Then he refused to fight against Greeks in a civil war. He was jailed by the British and the Greeks, who Churchill had recruited (they had been German collaborators during the war). And he was savagely tortured for many months. He said he thought he would die there. And why was all this done? To create the illusion of a cold war. Who were interested in a cold war? The Deep State. People like the Rothschilds who boast to this day that they have made their money funding both sides of every war since Napoleon.

And we need to consider, who has suffered for the many wars involved in the cold war? Millions of ordinary people around the world, East and West. And all for profit taking by those who are at the tip of the iceberg of the inhumane subculture. You only need to look at the devastation they did in Africa, India and China, just to name the big ones. There was untold suffering in these countries and all for profit taking by a handful of very evil people.

As far as the Milgram experiments go, they were flawed without a doubt. Certainly they were egged on by authority figures to administer bigger and bigger voltages to the learners. But they believed they were in a science experiment and that therefore it had to be legitimate and that there would be no one harmed. Several have since come forward saying that they didn’t believe the voltages were delivered at all. And they saw inconsistencies in the screams they heard. Why not do the experiment with the subjects being shocked in the same room? Would you really get ordinary people to do this experiment if it was real? I don’t think so. It was a con and most of the subjects realized it.

My question is: were they all really randomly chosen subjects? Furthermore, those, who refused to continue, are barely mentioned. Only those who were stood over and forced to continue are talked about and as if they were freely willing to continue.

And I would seriously question why this experiment took place during the trial of the war criminal Eichmann? And not only that. This is an experiment aimed to exonerate Eichmann by a Jew no less. Milgram had Jewish ancestry. This is too much for coincidence.

We see in the mate of Milgram, Dr. Zimbargo that the subjects would have been selected for inhumane qualities.

Have a look here: Inside The Stanford Prison Experiment That Revealed Humanity’s Depths (allthatsinteresting.com)
They were given a questionnaire to select the subjects to use from those that fronted up. He claimed he wanted healthy individuals. But then he gave them “military-surplus khakis, mirrored sunglasses, and wooden batons as a symbol of authority” And he told the guards they “not to hit or otherwise physically abuse the prisoners”, BUT that they could have “wide discretion in how they treated the 12 prisoners under their watch.” Can you really tell an average person this and get away with it? These people had to have been selected for inhumane qualities, for sure. And they were paid handsomely, the equivalent of around $90 /day in today’s money

I had seen somewhere, I haven’t been able to find it again, that Zimbardo’s fiancĂ©e or wife had gone down to see the experiment and was horrified. She question who she was with. That he and his experiment were unrecognizable and that if he didn’t stop it immediately she would leave him. The experiment was then cut short at that point.

This experiment also seems to have had an agenda.

“The study garnered attention after reports of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses in Iraq became known. Many people, including Zimbardo himself, suggest that the abuses at Abu Ghraib might be real-world examples of the same results observed in Zimbardo’s experiment.” Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (verywellmind.com)

These experiment, to my way of thinking at least, are set up to serve an agenda, the agenda of the inhumane subculture. They want to make the point that everyone is at heart inhumane, evil and that it only takes the right conditions for that to be seen. That way they can seamlessly fit into society. So while they are hidden in plain sight owing to the masks they wear, they want to be absolved of any wrong doing even if seen or caught. “We are all the same really” is the message they want to give and indeed indoctrinate everyone in society.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.